Historically though, it's almost never *just* income disparity that creates revolution. Usually it's a combination of poverty, corruption, oppression, mis-government.

You can certainly argue that wealth disparity necessarily brings all those things along with it. But there's relatively stable nations in the world with huge disparity and a much smaller middle class who don't show that inherent tendency toward revolution as an inevitable end product.

Historically though, it's almost never *just* income disparity that creates revolution. Usually it's a combination of poverty, corruption, oppression, mis-government.

You can certainly argue that wealth disparity necessarily brings all those things along with it. But there's relatively stable nations in the world with huge disparity and a much smaller middle class who don't show that inherent tendency toward revolution as an inevitable end product.

And why would the American middle class want to move in that direction? Self loathing?

In no way was I advocating or wishing for a revolution to redistribute wealth. That is a horrible method to attempt to use and historically an exceptionally ineffective method. I was pointing out consequences.

Nobu,

You claim "Undoubtedly so." to my position that the wealthy have voluntarily given away significant amounts of their wealth to help the masses at some time in the past. Given your confidence, can you given an example in which more than 50% of the wealthy did so? Mind you it has to be a significant amount and it cannot be via giving tithe to the church.

Vlip,

I don't share your optimism that we aren't there yet, at least not in the United States. We're a consumer driven economy and yet our consumers have ever dwindling percentages of the wealth. Trickle Down has been an utter disaster and boondoggle for the United States pushing the idea that low velocity investment money is better for driving and growing an economy than high velocity buying and selling churn money.

If I may argue by absurdity: Imagine a nation where all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a single man.Does anyone here argue that this is a good thing?

I dare think noone will.

As such one can safely say that wealth concentration can be a bad thing.

I don't your conclusion follows. In the situation you described relative poverty and absolute poverty are both present. If one man has everything then everyone else has nothing - and nothing is always bad.

On the other hand had you said that one man has 99% of the wealth I wouldn't condemn the society without knowing more. In a sufficiently wealthy society that might be okay.

You claim "Undoubtedly so." to my position that the wealthy have voluntarily given away significant amounts of their wealth to help the masses at some time in the past. Given your confidence, can you given an example in which more than 50% of the wealthy did so? Mind you it has to be a significant amount and it cannot be via giving tithe to the church.

No I meant undoubtedly so that were any nation that imposed significant but voluntary payments, there'd be less than 50% participation from the wealthy. I don't know. You say you can't count philanthropy so I have no idea what you're looking for here other than this hypothetical idea of voluntary government contributions.

You claim "Undoubtedly so." to my position that the wealthy have voluntarily given away significant amounts of their wealth to help the masses at some time in the past. Given your confidence, can you given an example in which more than 50% of the wealthy did so? Mind you it has to be a significant amount and it cannot be via giving tithe to the church.

No I meant undoubtedly so that were any nation that imposed significant but voluntary payments, there'd be less than 50% participation from the wealthy. I don't know. You say you can't count philanthropy so I have no idea what you're looking for here other than this hypothetical idea of voluntary government contributions.

I didn't say you couldn't count philanthropy, I said you couldn't count tithes to a church as I don't consider that a valid or effective means of helping the masses. If you can find an example of philanthropy in which 50% or more of a nation's wealthy gave away a significant amount of their wealth, I'd love to hear it.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed it existed, so I don't know why you're asking for an example. The contentious part of your post is that you think "raising taxes" is equivalent to "seizing wealth by force". Maybe by some extremely tenuous libertarian definition, that is true. But realistically, it's just putting a ridiculous face on a basic fact of civilized society.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed it existed, so I don't know why you're asking for an example. The contentious part of your post is that you think "raising taxes" is equivalent to "seizing wealth by force". Maybe by some extremely tenuous libertarian definition, that is true. But realistically, it's just putting a ridiculous face on a basic fact of civilized society.

That is most certainly not the part of my post that Nobu has expressed issue with.

As to taxes being enforced by the threat of force, of course they are. I am not some weak minded Libertarian who thinks that taxes are theft or that they are wrong or that they are immoral. They are clearly a requirement for a modern nation to function. That said, they are clearly implemented by force, particularly when they are changed so as to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the masses.

As has been pointed out, the masses were in favor of keeping the Clinton era tax rates and paying down the debt. It was the wealthy who demanded and bought the Bush tax cuts.

That is most certainly not the part of my post that Nobu has expressed issue with.

I don't think I expressed any issue with your post, I honestly didn't really understand what you were getting at with regard to the rich making voluntary contributions.

Quote:

As has been pointed out, the masses were in favor of keeping the Clinton era tax rates and paying down the debt. It was the wealthy who demanded and bought the Bush tax cuts.

I do have an issue with that statement depending on what period you're referring to and who "the masses" are. When Obama started pressing to retain the Bush Tax Cuts, one of the pieces of data they started showing around was how popular it was polling, at 2/3 favorable. What are you looking at when you're talking about what the masses wanted?

As has been pointed out, the masses were in favor of keeping the Clinton era tax rates and paying down the debt. It was the wealthy who demanded and bought the Bush tax cuts.

I do have an issue with that statement depending on what period you're referring to and who "the masses" are. When Obama started pressing to retain the Bush Tax Cuts, one of the pieces of data they started showing around was how popular it was polling, at 2/3 favorable. What are you looking at when you're talking about what the masses wanted?

If I may argue by absurdity: Imagine a nation where all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a single man.Does anyone here argue that this is a good thing?

I dare think noone will.

As such one can safely say that wealth concentration can be a bad thing.

I don't your conclusion follows. In the situation you described relative poverty and absolute poverty are both present. If one man has everything then everyone else has nothing - and nothing is always bad.

On the other hand had you said that one man has 99% of the wealth I wouldn't condemn the society without knowing more. In a sufficiently wealthy society that might be okay.

Except that such a society can't possibly exist other than in the realm of conjecture.

I think we've gone over the edge wrt wealth & income concentration here in the US, and that strong measures will be necessary to prevent further acceleration of the trend.

Although the exact mechanism is not understood, the correlation between extreme concentration & instability is quite strong. I'd submit that it has to do with the substitution of credit for earnings among the middle class, and of asset value inflation of debt instruments. Too little purchasing power among the middle class & too much investment money chasing too few returns at the top come together to create excess risk.

Even when losing money, the investment class stays afloat, because they have enormous reserves & are highly diversified, none of which applies to a middle class living increasingly hand to mouth, strung out on debt & the need for steady employment to support it. After an economic shock like the collapse of the housing bubble, the only people in a position to exploit bargain pricing are the investor class, which leads to even greater divergence. Even as GDP recovers, middle class share of it declines with each cycle.

We end up with the two Americas scenario of today, where those at the tippy top are increasingly disconnected from the rest of us, and those really are the policy makers of our society. They call for austerity & spending cuts along with more tax cuts for themselves not really understanding what that does to the fabric of our society, but rather simply understanding that it's good for them.

The best time to be Rich? When everybody else is broke, and we seem to be creating increasingly good times for our financial elite.

Reading though the news of the surplus at the time seems quaint now. It wasn't going to be 1999 forever as it turns out.

Although it seems likely we'd be in better shape fiscally if we'd have refrained from tax cuts & engaging in 2 wars simultaneously along with a huge helping of America's favorite comfort food, exotic military hardware...

I'm with you Nobu. Since the conditions are so inopportune for a revolution the only conclusion I can draw from the repeated invocations of is a conscious or subconscious desire of some posters to see such a thing. Like I said above, a sick psudo-nostalgia. The closest analogy I can think of is the eagerness of some in a peacetime military to see war. They don't recognize how incredibly lucky they are to live in 'boring' times.

The subject comes up because the Republicans started shouting "class warfare" in response to the possibility of rolling back tax cuts.

The subject comes up because the Republicans started shouting "class warfare" in response to the possibility of rolling back tax cuts.

Oh, I don't know about that, it might come up in here because of that. The threat itself is at least 50 years old and seems pretty universal. You've heard the expression "You'll (They'll) be the first against the wall when the revolution comes"?

The subject comes up because the Republicans started shouting "class warfare" in response to the possibility of rolling back tax cuts.

Oh, I don't know about that, it might come up in here because of that. The threat itself is at least 50 years old and seems pretty universal. You've heard the expression "You'll (They'll) be the first against the wall when the revolution comes"?

At this point, it's only the so-called "Patriots" saying such things, and they adore the Rich.

There is greater argument for publicly executing people who damage the entire nation by financial crimes than for executing a burglar who kills only one victim while invading a house. It should be termed "financial treason" and dealt with accordingly.

I certainly do support executing folks like Bernard Madoff. I'd have liked to see him led into a stadium, the specifics of his crimes and the damage they inflicted on the innocent recited, and his career ended by hanging or a bullet, Chinese style.

Some folks won't behave unless they have credible fear of apprehension and punishment. Solution? Apprehend, ensure a fair trial, and then crush them in an exemplary manner.

People in positions of responsibility have less excuse for crime than some ignorant, impoverished shmuck with fewer options in life and who has reaped far fewer rewards from society. They knew better.

There is greater argument for publicly executing people who damage the entire nation by financial crimes than for executing a burglar who kills only one victim while invading a house. It should be termed "financial treason" and dealt with accordingly.

I certainly do support executing folks like Bernard Madoff. I'd have liked to see him led into a stadium, the specifics of his crimes and the damage they inflicted on the innocent recited, and his career ended by hanging or a bullet, Chinese style.

Some folks won't behave unless they have credible fear of apprehension and punishment. Solution? Apprehend, ensure a fair trial, and then crush them in an exemplary manner.

People in positions of responsibility have less excuse for crime than some ignorant, impoverished shmuck with fewer options in life and who has reaped far fewer rewards from society. They knew better.

They don't think they're going to get caught. Executing them serves literally no purpose. It is not in any sense a solution.

House thiefs typically place a relatively low cash value on their own lives, evaluate risk/reward poorly, and don't have much to lose. Therefore, the death penalty isn't much of a deterrent for them. They don't think they're going to have to kill anybody and they don't think they're going to get caught, so it's easy for them to mentally brush away any deterrent effect from the death penalty.

Bankers are the opposite. They'll spend enormous amounts of money on insurance and safety ahead of time. They're professional risk vs. reward evaluators. They know they're going to get audited eventually at some level and they know that if they steal/embezzle a lot of money, someone else to whom that money is important will investigate. I think the death penalty would dissuade them quite well. Right now, the penalty seems to be "steal 10 billion dollars, get caught, give back 8 billion and spend some time in club fed."

It's pure revenge fantasy. They're rich and they got away with it, I want them to die. That's all it is.

The death penalty doesn't dissuade shit. It doesn't keep people from doing crimes that have less than one millionth the upside. Nobody ever thinks they will be caught, least of all the sort of people who engage in the type of financial chicanery that got us here.